NAGPRA Consultation and the National Park Service Item Type Report Authors Evans, Michael J.; Dobyns, Henry F.; Stoffle, Richard W.; Austin, Diane; Krause, Elizabeth L. Publisher Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona Download date 05/10/2021 23:41:52 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296658 NAGPRA Consultation and the National Park Service NAGPRA Consultation and the National Park Service An Ethnographic Report On Pipe Spring National Monument Devils Tower National Monument Tuzigoot National Monument Montezuma Castle National Monument Western Archeological and Conservation Center Final Report submitted by Michael J. Evans Henry F. Dobyns Richard W. Stoffle Diane Austin Elizabeth L. Krause Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona submitted to Stephanie Rodeffer Contracting Officer's Technical Representative Western Archeological and Conservation Center National Park Service Tucson, Arizona Cooperative Agreement #8100 -1 -0001 June 10, 1994 Table of Contents Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1 The NAGPRA Milieu 5 Definitions 7 Associated and Unassociated Funerary 7 Objects 7 Sacred Objects 10 Objects of Cultural Patrimony 11 Cultural Affiliation 14 Right of Possession 14 Summaries and Inventories 16 Consultation 17 Purpose of Study 18 Components of a NAGPRA Process 18 The Summary Lists 19 Cultural Affiliation 21 Visitation to the Collection 23 Recommendations from Culturally Affiliated Tribes 24 Methods and Chronology of Project Events 24 Methods Used During This Project 24 Chronology of Project Events 28 Organization of this Report 29 Chapter 2 31 Western Archeological and Conservation Center 31 Background 31 Summary of NAGPRA- Related Items and Collection Concerns 31 Potential Cultural Affiliations for the Summary List Items 33 Prescott Items 33 Roosevelt Lake Area Items 34 Laguna Pueblo - Window Rock Items 36 Laguna Pueblo 37 Acoma Pueblo 37 -i- Zuñi Pueblo 37 Navajo Nation 38 Mimbres Items 38 Phoenix and Bylas Items 39 Item from Pueblo Near Hovenweep 39 Addresses of Potential Culturally Affiliated American Indian Tribes 40 Chapter 3 43 Middle Verde River Valley 43 Background 43 Yavapais in the 1860s 43 The Piman Hypothesis: Espejo met Northern Pimans in 1583 48 The "Sinagua" Hypothesis 52 The Hopi- and -Piman Hypothesis 56 Montezuma Castle National Monument: 57 Background 57 History of the Montezuma Castle Archaeology Efforts 57 Montezuma Well 62 Summary of NAGPRA- Related Items and Collection Concerns 63 Tuzigoot National Monument 64 Background 65 Monument Archeography 65 History of Archaeology Excavations at Tuzigoot 67 Summary of NAGPRA- Related Items and Collection Concerns 70 Potential Culturally Affiliated American Indian Tribes 71 Yavapai 71 Hopi 71 Northern Pimans 72 Addresses of Potential Culturally Affiliated American Indian Tribes 73 Chapter 4 75 Devils Tower National Monument 75 Background 76 -ii- Three American Indian Legends About Devils Tower 77 Cheyenne 77 Kiowa 78 Teton -Dakota 79 Summary of NAGPRA -Related Items and Collection Concerns 80 Potential Cultural Affiliations of the Collection Objects 84 Arapaho 85 Assiniboine 86 Blackfeet 88 Cheyenne 90 Crow 94 Gros Ventre 96 Kiowa 101 Kiowa- Apache 101 Sarci 102 Teton Dakota 103 Addresses of Potential Culturally Affiliated American Indian Tribes 108 Chapter 5 111 Pipe Spring National Monument 111 Background 111 Summary of NAGPRA- Related Items and Collection Concerns..115 Information Gaps in the Pipe Spring Collection 115 Collection Storage 117 Potential Cultural Affiliation of Objects at Pipe Spring 118 Addresses of Potential Culturally Affiliated American Indian Tribes 119 Chapter 6 121 Native American Consultation at Pipe Spring National Monument 121 Kaibab Paiute Indian Tribe 121 Hopi Indian Tribe 126 Shivwits Paiute Band 130 Consultation Group Meeting 133 Kaibab Paiute Recommendations 133 Chapter 7 Recommendations 135 Categories of Potential Error in the Servicewide Summaries of Collections 135 Recommendations 139 NAGPRA Consultation Recommendations 139 Preparation of a Comprehensive Object List 140 Visual Documentation of Objects 141 Tribal Contact for Consultation Meetings 142 Consultation Meetings 143 The Collection Visits 145 Consultation Group Recommendations 145 Setting 146 Schedule 147 Cost 148 Documentation 149 Consultation Recommendations for the Five Study Units 150 Pipe Spring National Monument 151 Devils Tower National Monument 151 Tuzigoot, Montezuma Castle, and WACC 153 References Cited 155 Annotated Bibliography 183 Chapter 1 Introduction Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) became law on November 16, 1990. NAGPRA addresses the rights of lineal descendants and members of American Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian groups to certain human remains and cultural items with which they are affiliated. Congressional intent in passing NAGPRA was to initiate a dialogue between Native Americans and the museums and Federal agencies that possess human remains and artifacts originating with these people (101st Congress Senate Report 2d Session 101 -473). NAGPRA places strong emphasis on the recognition of the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the authority of tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to define the sig- nificance of items within their cultures. The concepts of cultural affiliation, sacred objects, funerary objects, and objects of cultural patrimony defined by the law will be applied to objects in collections through a collaborative effort between tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, and Federal agencies. While the interaction and consultation between native groups and museums or agencies must proceed on a case -by -case basis since the types of objects that fit in these categories differ from one group to another (West 1993), the process by which NAGPRA will be carried out is outlined in the legislation and the regulations that accompany the law. The process is necessarily cooperative; neither group can proceed without the other. NAGPRA redefines in a fundamental manner the relationship between federally funded museums, Federal agencies, and native groups. It marks "the beginning, not the end, of a dialogue between museums and native groups about the treatment, care, and repose of ethnographic and archaeo- logical collections" (Haas 1991: 46).1 The legislation follows decades of extreme concern about the treatment of Native American burial sites. The 1 "The passage of...[NAGPRA] brings to an end one phase in the relationship between Indians and museums and brings another during which relationships will undergo many additional changes" (Thompson 1991: 36). -1- intent of Congress in passing NAGPRA was to change past practices: The purpose of [the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, in part,] is to protect Native American burial sites and the removal of human remains, funerary objects,sa- cred objects, objects of cultural patrimony on Federal, Indian and Native Hawaiian lands. The Act also sets up aprocess by which Federal agencies and museums receiving Federal funds will inventory holdings of such remains and objects and work with appropriate Indian tribes and native Hawaiian organiza- tions to reach agreement on repatriation or other disposition of these remains and objects (H.R. Report No. 5237, 101 Con- gress, 2d Session 14, 1990). Some museums, such as the Field Museum of Natural History, the Denver Museum of Natural History, the Florida Museum of Natural History, the Bishop Museum, the Colorado Historical Society, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, the Museum of New Mexico, and the Illinois State Museum, did not wait to be forced by legislation to change their collection policies. Prior to NAGPRA these museums had adopted policies with regard to repatriation requests. In addition to responding to such requests, these museums were hoping to develop better relationships with native groups (Boyd and Haas 1992: 253). At a two -day conference on NAGPRA sponsored by the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) in August 1993, several issues of concern for Native Americans, museums, and Federal agencies were raised. Among these was identifying cultural affiliation. The summaries of NAGPRA- related objects were constructed by museum and agency staff members with different amounts of experience and knowledge about the culture of native groups. The constructs of cultural affiliation, sacredness, and cultural patrimony can only be used accurately in consultation with native groups when the discussion centers on specific objects. In some native groups, however, the divulging of religious information is a viola- tion of strongly held cultural and religious beliefs. One social scientist at the NMAI conference maintained that tribal authorities must be protected from having to violate their religious and cultural traditions to accomplish the function of identification of cultural affiliation (Basso 1993). The lack of a provision in NAGPRA that information provided in the consultation processes between Native Americans and museums or Federal agencies must be kept confidential was of concern to the NAGPRA Review Com- mittee and was addressed in their September 1993 meeting (McKeown, personal communication). The final NAGPRA regulations will include language that will allow museum officials and Federal agencies to take such steps as necessary to ensure that information provided to them by the representatives of